Le génocide sans principe: l’exemple du Cambodge<p>O genocídio sem princípio: o exemplo do Camboja
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméEn se basant sur l’exemple du génocide cambodgien, il s’agit de poser la question, sur les plans politique et psychique, du sacrifice comme au-delà de la cruauté dans l’horizon du mal radical. Les trois particularités de cet “événement” (le tribunal mixte, la nécessaire redéfinition du génocide et l’interrogation du paradigme de la Shoah) ouvrent alors sur une pensée de l’indicible et de la dépense pure, laquelle conduit peut-être à l’expérience intérieure du sacrifiant. ResumoCom base no exemplo do genocídio cambojano, trata-se de fazer a pergunta, no nível politico e psíquico, do sacrifício para além da crueldade no horizonte do mal radical. As três peculiaridades desse « evento » (o tribunal misto, a necessária redefinicão do genocídio e o questionamento do paradigma da Shoah) abrem-se então a um pensamento do indizível e do puro gasto, que talvez leve ao experiência interior do sacrificador.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".